Apple has announced that developers who offer free App Store applications can now take advantage of in-app transactions -- a feature that was previously allowed only for paid software.

The In App Purchase feature, which was implemented in the iPhone 3.0 software update for paid applications, has now been expanded for use in free applications. Previously, some developers were forced to charge a nominal $0.99 fee for their software to have In App Purchase capabilities.

The new policy has already affected some prominent applications, including MapQuest's Navigator. MapQuest had previously offered a $.99 price for a 14-day trial. Now due to what the MapQuest blog called "App Store restrictions," they now initially offer the application for $3.99 for one month of use.

TechCrunch suggested that this change will have a major impact the structure of paid and free applications. Due to the previous paid-app restriction, premium app makers have often offered both full and light versions of their software. Now that free applications are essentially upgradeable, developers will not face this problem.

The note sent to developers Thursday reads:

"In App Purchase is being rapidly adopted by developers in their paid apps. Now you can use In App Purchase in your free apps to sell content, subscriptions, and digital services.

"You can also simplify your development by creating a single version of your app that uses In App Purchase to unlock additional functionality, eliminating the need to create Lite versions of your app. Using In App Purchase in your app can also help combat some of the problems of software piracy by allowing you to verify In App Purchases.

Visit the App Store Resource Center*for more details about how you can add In*App*Purchases to your free apps."

I’m not a fan of this. I liked the idea of free apps always being free. Then again, this might limit developers creating a limited free app that they don’t update/fix and a paid for app that they do update/fix. I guess we’ll see.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I think it's great
- there's no need for the 'Lite' version of every app any more
- just make the basic version free, and have In-app purchases to enable all the features

- makes perfect sense to me

Also e-books, it's ideal - the reader is free, and the you have to pay for the books...

Could be good could be bad. People being what they are I am certain many "developers" will abuse the privilege.

It will cut down on piracy and that's good, but there's nothing worse than a free app that bugs you every five seconds to buy something.

it seems perfect for books as you say, but it will also create walled gardens. For instance there is a "Comix" app on the store now that I bought to read comics with. Even though there are standard comic formats and comic readers though, this one refuses to let you read any content that you don't buy through the app in their proprietary format.

That's just plain awful (and mean as well).

No doubt we will see a lot more of that kind of crap, but if it cuts down on the theft I guess that's a good thing.

I think it's a great idea. Yes, some developers will abuse it, that's not new, is it?

But users will weed them out.

In the meantime, in app purchasing has been great for me. My latest app is Audio Tools, a professional program for extensive audio testing. The basic program costs $19, and add ons cost from about $5 all the way to $99 for one.

This is a great way to pay for only those tests you need, with the ability to easily add new ones later. In addition, they will have hardware coming out in mid November that adds to the ability of the program, and you don't need to pay for the extra tests that require the hardware (even though most of the others will benefit from it) until you buy the hardware, and need those tests.

This would be a real pain to do otherwise. The company told me at the AES convention last week, where I first found out about this stuff that they would have had to charge over $100 for the basic program otherwise, and come out with the other extras as separate programs, duplicating a number of functions along the way, bringing their cost up as well.

I'm not advertising this program, but it's a great example, as there are a large bunch of extra tests available from within the program if you press the "Install" button. In addition, they will be adding a large number of other tests and filters from another well known pro audio test software company in the near future.

Without in program buying, this would all be much more complex and expensive for many people.

As far as buying an upgrade from within a free program, well, that's great too.

Many developers have been complaining of the need to build, and submit two different apps. This will make that much simpler for them, and for the customer who wants to upgrade from the free version.

How dare those developers try to make money and be reimbursed for their time. From now on, I'm making my own apps!

No one is saying they cant make money. I expressed my desire for in-app purchases over a year ago and stated that it would help push new levels or periodicals and such. When Apple stated that free apps cant have in-app purchases I applauded that move as it would limit the bait and switch moves by some developers, but they could still do it with 99¢ apps and having a Lite version is a pain in the ass. I guess in the end ts 6 of one half dozen of the other, but I still wish it wasnt changed.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I'm a fan of a model where users can 'test' a full featured app for a limited time and return it if they are unsatisfied. And, when I say limited time, I mean an hour or just minutes. Long enough to get a feel for the app.

We've all downloaded an app that has limited screenshots in it's description. After it's installed, you find the graphics actually stink, the controls are shotty, or the mechanics don't deliver. You can usually tell within the first few minutes of messing with the app.

Wouldn't it be great if within an hour (or even 15 minutes) of downloading an app, you could return it for a full refund?

How dare those developers try to make money and be reimbursed for their time. From now on, I'm making my own apps!

I guess you are only trying to be funny here, but ...

You've completely mischaracterised what I said, and what the other person said as well.

The first comment just restated what was Apple *policy* up until about a half hour ago (free apps should always be free). My comment was only that given the fact that many so-called "developers" are closer to scam artists than talented programmers, there will of course be abuse. This is just human nature.

I'd like to see Apple change the categorisation a bit with this move. If there are going to be now 3 different types of "free," ("free", "free-with-ads", "free but reduced functionality"), I'd like them to be separated out.

I am only interested in "free" or "paid" myself.
The whole "it's sorta free" thing is annoying and deceptive IMO.

I’m not a fan of this. I liked the idea of free apps always being free. Then again, this might limit developers creating a limited free app that they don’t update/fix and a paid for app that they do update/fix. I guess we’ll see.

Free apps never WERE always free--many were just teasers for paid apps, which it was then additional effort to download and delete the "demo."

I think this has LOTS of benefits, and few disadvantages. Most of which, if you think about, already existed before anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazoobee

I am only interested in "free" or "paid" myself.
The whole "it's sorta free" thing is annoying and deceptive IMO.

Not me--I greatly prefer to try-before-I-buy, with as little effort as possible. "Sorta free" already describes plenty of "free" apps even before this change--it WAS deceptive at times (which is why intelligent reviews are important) and it was even MORE annoying than now, because the upgrade process was not direct.

Im not a fan of this. I liked the idea of free apps always being free. Then again, this might limit developers creating a limited free app that they dont update/fix and a paid for app that they do update/fix. I guess well see.

I think you are missing the point of this decision. Free apps can and will still be free. But now I don't need to compile and present a "free" demo version of any of the apps I intend for sale.

Developers, at least, will welcome this with open arms. It just makes the process of managing our apps in the store that much easier.

Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.

I'm a fan of a model where users can 'test' a full featured app for a limited time and return it if they are unsatisfied. And, when I say limited time, I mean an hour or just minutes. Long enough to get a feel for the app.

We've all downloaded an app that has limited screenshots in it's description. After it's installed, you find the graphics actually stink, the controls are shotty, or the mechanics don't deliver. You can usually tell within the first few minutes of messing with the app.

Wouldn't it be great if within an hour (or even 15 minutes) of downloading an app, you could return it for a full refund?

Apps aren't allowed to be time limited, only feature limited. This is the reason why lite apps have reduced functionality instead of full functionality with a time limit.

You've completely mischaracterised what I said, and what the other person said as well.

The first comment just restated what was Apple *policy* up until about a half hour ago (free apps should always be free). My comment was only that given the fact that many so-called "developers" are closer to scam artists than talented programmers, there will of course be abuse. This is just human nature.

I'd like to see Apple change the categorisation a bit with this move. If there are going to be now 3 different types of "free," ("free", "free-with-ads", "free but reduced functionality"), I'd like them to be separated out.

I am only interested in "free" or "paid" myself.
The whole "it's sorta free" thing is annoying and deceptive IMO.

I would like to think that just "some" developers are scam artists. And their apps don't do too well.

But there are users who cheat as well. Pirated software, and jailbreaking the phone are two examples.

A free app will still be a free app. You're under the misapprehension that that will change. It will not.

...You've completely mischaracterised what I said, and what the other person said as well.

I'd like to see Apple change the categorisation a bit with this move...

Quote:

Originally Posted by solipsism

No one is saying they cant make money...I guess in the end its 6 of one half dozen of the other, but I still wish it wasnt changed.

You're right, there's more nuance to this "free" app than I realize. If I were a developer, and I release the app as being free + optional paid feature unlocking, then it wasn't really free- it was "free" but not really free because to let the app do more the user has to pay, hence, it was not a "free" app, it was a "bait and switch" as solipsism said, hence there potentially will no longer be a totally "free" app as a category.

Quote:

Originally Posted by justflybob

I think you are missing the point of this decision. Free apps can and will still be free. But now I don't need to compile and present a "free" demo version of any of the apps I intend for sale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by melgross

...A free app will still be a free app. You're under the misapprehension that that will change. It will not.

You're right, there's more nuance to this "free" app than I realize. If I were a developer, and I release the app as being free + optional paid feature unlocking, then it wasn't really free- it was "free" but not really free because to let the app do more the user has to pay, hence, it was not a "free" app, it was a "bait and switch" as solipsism said, hence there potentially will no longer be a totally "free" app as a category.

That's not correct. Right now, free versions of apps are feature limited. So they must also be "bait and switch".

In addition, much shareware is feature limited, also "bait and switch"?

What about shareware that is limited time? Just as you really get to depend on it (which you shouldn't do under the circumstances), "pop", it stops and asks you to upgrade. "Bait and switch"?

In fact you can say that about any application that has add-ons, such as most audio and video editing programs, even though you do pay for the program itself.

As others have posted you will now be able to have a free aggregator program like an eBook Reader, and charge for the content--rather than waste server storage, bandwidth and device storage (eliminate the need to package a copy of the app with every copy of the content).

I would like to see it go even further and have submitted a feature request, for same.

I would like to be able to have a feature in my app where I could allow the user to purchase any content available in the iTunes stores (currently: app, music, TV, Movies and LPs), without leaving my app. Currently, the best my app can do is save status, link to the store item (terminating my app). Later the user has to resume my app to pick up where he left off.

This is like going to the back of the line for every menu item you buy in a trip to the [fast food]] restaurant!

*

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

Seems like a good idea. Only concern would be bait and switch. I hope Apple requires the free apps to very clearly spell out exactly what will enabled with the initial free download. Otherwise the apps might advertise all sorts of functionality, none of which is there until you pay, perhaps for each feature. Not generally a huge concern and certainly if it was going to be a problem, the 99 cent apps might have seen the same behavior.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

That's not correct. Right now, free versions of apps are feature limited. So they must also be "bait and switch".

In addition, much shareware is feature limited, also "bait and switch"?

What about shareware that is limited time? Just as you really get to depend on it (which you shouldn't do under the circumstances), "pop", it stops and asks you to upgrade. "Bait and switch"?

In fact you can say that about any application that has add-ons, such as most audio and video editing programs, even though you do pay for the program itself.

It's absurd to think that.

Free will still be free.

What's the matter with you people? Are you all that cynical?

I am not disagreeing with your here, but it really isn't being overly cynical. After all, wasn't this exactly the reasoning Jobs gave when he intro'd In App Purchases...that free apps would not be allowed, in order to prevent bait and switch (though not in those words).

If Apple had the same concerns, then were they also being overly cynical?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

Seems like a good idea. Only concern would be bait and switch. I hope Apple requires the free apps to very clearly spell out exactly what will enabled with the initial free download. Otherwise the apps might advertise all sorts of functionality, none of which is there until you pay, perhaps for each feature. Not generally a huge concern and certainly if it was going to be a problem, the 99 cent apps might have seen the same behavior.

IMO any developers who do try bait-and-switch will very quickly find themselves with one-star reviews and no sales. Both being incentive enough to be honest about things!

That said, I don't know if comparing an app's description to its actual functionality is something Apple does in the review process, but perhaps it should be. Apps that bait-and-switch should be rejected.

This isn't a new "feature", it's a method for companies to advertise. This will render lots of apps unappealing to me and cause me to download fewer apps and cease to upload others that include in-app sales.

If you look at this new sales technique as any thing other than spam you're an idiot...

The iPhone is going to become a stinky pile of doo when every app available tries to sell you something you have no intterest in to begin with.

I was very happy with the "free is free" policy: it did kill the "shareware" economic model, which consists in free programs which always ask you for money (to put it simple)
I do not think the system based on "Lite" and "Full" version was this bad, at least we knew what we were buying.
If many developer will not be affected by that system, I am sure the store will be polluted by many "gimme-money" applications and that sucks (yeah I am cynical, but look in your letterbox or your e-mail: you'll get what I'm saying)
But there is a way to make things better: in search options, add next to "free app" and "not-free app" a "not-really-free app" category so that user could just ignore them when they are looking for free programs.

As others have posted you will now be able to have a free aggregator program like an eBook Reader, and charge for the content--rather than waste server storage, bandwidth and device storage (eliminate the need to package a copy of the app with every copy of the content).

I would like to see it go even further and have submitted a feature request, for same.

I would like to be able to have a feature in my app where I could allow the user to purchase any content available in the iTunes stores (currently: app, music, TV, Movies and LPs), without leaving my app. Currently, the best my app can do is save status, link to the store item (terminating my app). Later the user has to resume my app to pick up where he left off.

This is like going to the back of the line for every menu item you buy in a trip to the [fast food]] restaurant!

I am not disagreeing with your here, but it really isn't being overly cynical. After all, wasn't this exactly the reasoning Jobs gave when he intro'd In App Purchases...that free apps would not be allowed, in order to prevent bait and switch (though not in those words).

If Apple had the same concerns, then were they also being overly cynical?

I thought they were. And now, THEY think they were.

We have to give people SOME credit. Do you feel as though you have to upgrade a free program to a paid version? I don't. But sometimes I do.

As I've said, the developers who are too ballsy about it will get cut down by the reviewers, and users. Or Apple themselves might decide, when they review a program for entry, that it's going too far.

It's just not something I'll worry about, even though there will be a few who will try and take advantage.

Honestly, if someone can't exercise some restraint in what they buy, the iPhone Reclamation Team should come and take it away from them.

This isn't a new "feature", it's a method for companies to advertise. This will render lots of apps unappealing to me and cause me to download fewer apps and cease to upload others that include in-app sales.

If you look at this new sales technique as any thing other than spam you're an idiot...

The iPhone is going to become a stinky pile of doo when every app available tries to sell you something you have no intterest in to begin with.

You have no idea as to how developers will act. I've got several programs that sell more from within the program. so far, it's all been done tastefully, and hasn't been bothersome.

I believe that that will be the norm, and any flaming nonsense will be rare, and quickly gone.

I am a paid developer. I do not have any apps for sale in the app store, that is not my motivation. I have several apps released ad hoc.

I have 2 different apps in development that experiment how to support a (composer, singer, lyricist) friend/associate who will release her 1st album on iTunes (original songs, video, LPs, etc) in the near future. One part of the app provides a way for a user to preview and purchase her content.

Briefly, there are 2 barriers to doing this the "right way":

1) only paid apps are allowed to provide in-app purchases-- so if we wanted to offer the user the convenience of buying content, we would need to charge for the app.

2) within the app, we cannot sell her content that is in the iTunes Music Store. We have 2 choices:

2.1) leave the app and link to the the item in the iTunes Music Store-- poor sales technique, clumsy and inefficient

2.2) duplicate her content on our own servers and distribute it ourselves, within the app, (duplicating the function of the iTunes store, but losing most of its benefits).

This isn't a new "feature", it's a method for companies to advertise. This will render lots of apps unappealing to me and cause me to download fewer apps and cease to upload others that include in-app sales.

If you look at this new sales technique as any thing other than spam you're an idiot...

The iPhone is going to become a stinky pile of doo when every app available tries to sell you something you have no intterest in to begin with.

I disagree.

You could "advertise" within an app (free or paid) before today-- you just could not purchase from within a free app.

If a developer abuses this feature, word will get out, and buyers will avoid the app or Apple will remove it from the store.

I could see some promoting their apps as "no in-app advertising".

Seriously, I believe this will result in apps being more convenient to use.

Apps could have a special tab/button/menu that deals with promotional items, that a user could peruse at his option.

Say, I am out and about and running app x. I like it, would like to know about other apps by this developer. It would be great if the app had a tab or get-info button that allowed me to do this.

Some apps do this now by linking to a web site or the iTunes store (quitting the current app and opening Safari app or the iTunes app). It would be more convenient if the information was available without leaving the app. (It is trivial to read and display web pages within an app, In fact, there is a UI API/framework, UIWebView, that is designed specifically for that purpose).

If I can purchase within the app, all the more convenient!

*

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

You could "advertise" within an app (free or paid) before today-- you just could not purchase from within a free app.

If a developer abuses this feature, word will get out, and buyers will avoid the app or Apple will remove it from the store.

I could see some promoting their apps as "no in-app advertising".

Seriously, I believe this will result in apps being more convenient to use.

Apps could have a special tab/button/menu that deals with promotional items, that a user could peruse at his option.

Say, I am out and about and running app x. I like it, would like to know about other apps by this developer. It would be great if the app had a tab or get-info button that allowed me to do this.

Some apps do this now by linking to a web site or the iTunes store (quitting the current app and opening Safari app or the iTunes app). It would be more convenient if the information was available without leaving the app. (It is trivial to read and display web pages within an app, In fact, there is a UI API/framework, UIWebView, that is designed specifically for that purpose).

If I can purchase within the app, all the more convenient!

*

It's an interesting idea to allow purchase of iTune content from within your app
- Apple have a phobia about allowing duplication of their core functionality
- but you need not do that if you just specify a single track, album etc, and it gets loaded to the iPod music area.

We have to give people SOME credit. Do you feel as though you have to upgrade a free program to a paid version? I don't. But sometimes I do.

As I've said, the developers who are too ballsy about it will get cut down by the reviewers, and users. Or Apple themselves might decide, when they review a program for entry, that it's going too far.

It's just not something I'll worry about, even though there will be a few who will try and take advantage.

Honestly, if someone can't exercise some restraint in what they buy, the iPhone Reclamation Team should come and take it away from them.

Sure, and like I said, I don't disagree with you.

I just don't see the point in getting upset that some people still see possible problems. After all, they were told to think this way and for some, if Apple says it, it is true. It will just take time for the newly approved thoughts to process. (j/k)

To be honest, I really don't see the difference in risk of bait and switch between In App Purchases for free apps and 99 cent apps, other than free taking away all possible barriers to give it a try.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

I'm a fan of a model where users can 'test' a full featured app for a limited time and return it if they are unsatisfied. And, when I say limited time, I mean an hour or just minutes. Long enough to get a feel for the app.

We've all downloaded an app that has limited screenshots in it's description. After it's installed, you find the graphics actually stink, the controls are shotty, or the mechanics don't deliver. You can usually tell within the first few minutes of messing with the app.

Wouldn't it be great if within an hour (or even 15 minutes) of downloading an app, you could return it for a full refund?

Absolutely positively NOT. That is the absolute last thing thats needed. You sound like the average Amazon.com customer. Someone who thinks its within their right to purchase something, use and abuse for 30 days, then return a now worthless unit for a full refund. That's actually called FRAUD, but lenient return policies of high-volume companies have legitimized this ridiculous excuse for consumer business.

For the small developers retailing on the App Store, their only chance at success beyond a runaway-hit-application, are the impulse purchases. If everyone could decide within an hour, or even 15 minutes, that they want their money back instead, the App store would be a total business loss. YOU wouldn't care of course, because you'd have your $1.07 back. You might start to care when you don't notice any new applications being developed, however.

What are needed, are more substantial advert media built into the App Store. 4 screen shots doesn't cut it. A structure-less description that can contain as much or as little useful info as provided, also doesn't cut it.

Video demos should be the primary visual. A 30 second video that shows not only the animation of the app, but how you actually interact with your fingers, ala TouchArcade, should be the standard.

Also, the App descriptions should be more structured and concise, with specific bold bullets that people can judge from without having to read 25 testimonials first.

Can someone explain to me how your purchased content is saved with this model?

What happens if I buy a ton of books or levels or whatever through InAppPurchase, then delete it off my phone? I still own the app, and I still have it in iTunes. Normally, this would erase my "saved data" anyway, but until now Saved Data hasn't consisted of anything significant beyond high scores/preferences. WIll This Delete My Purchased Content?

What if I want to install the same app on my iPhone AND my iPod touch.....? Do I have to purchase the content more than once???? Endlessly?